Re: [PATCH 16/22] dt-bindings: qcom: geni-se: document support for SA8255P

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 29/08/2024 16:23, Nikunj Kela wrote:
> 
> On 8/29/2024 12:42 AM, Krzysztof Kozlowski wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 28, 2024 at 01:37:15PM -0700, Nikunj Kela wrote:
>>> Add "qcom,sa8255p-geni-se-qup" compatible for representing QUP on
>>> SA8255p.
>>>
>>> Clocks are being managed by the firmware VM and not required on
>>> SA8255p Linux VM hence removing it from required list.
>>>
>>> CC: Praveen Talari <quic_ptalari@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> Signed-off-by: Nikunj Kela <quic_nkela@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>>  .../bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml       | 47 +++++++++++++++++--
>>>  1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml
>>> index 7b031ef09669..40e3a3e045da 100644
>>> --- a/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml
>>> +++ b/Documentation/devicetree/bindings/soc/qcom/qcom,geni-se.yaml
>>> @@ -22,17 +22,16 @@ properties:
>>>      enum:
>>>        - qcom,geni-se-qup
>>>        - qcom,geni-se-i2c-master-hub
>>> +      - qcom,sa8255p-geni-se-qup
>> Same problems. If you decide to use generic compatibles, it means it
>> covers all devices. Otherwise it does not make any sense.
> 
> Hi Krzysztof,
> 
> SA8255p platform is not compatible with generic ones. At the time
> generic compatibles were added, no one thought of such platform will

That's kind of obvious and expected yet these were added...

> appear in future. Please advise what should we do in this case?

I don't know. We keep telling - do not use generic compatibles, because
you will have something like this, but people use generic compatibles -
so what can I say? I told you so?

Can we get agreement that using generic compatibles is a wrong idea? Or
sort of promise - we won't use them? Or policy? I don't know, we can
move on assuming this was a mistake 8 years ago, approaches evolve,
reviews change, but I am just afraid I will be repeating the same to
several future contributions and every time come with long arguments
exhausting my energy - don't add generic compatibles.

If devices are not compatible, I suggest different bindings.

Best regards,
Krzysztof





[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [Linux for Sparc]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux MIPS]     [ECOS]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]

  Powered by Linux